A Reading of Pope Francis’ Laudato Si’ and Laudate Deum from the Perspective of Theology of the People

Abstract

Pope Francis’ first encyclical, Laudato Si’, set the tone of much of his reflection about the environment. The earth is not considered from a naturalistic scientific perspective, but as the “common home”, where caring for the planet means caring for each other. Eight years later, the Pope issued an exhortation, Laudate Deum in which he again called for mutual care and concern for the environment. This article aims to read and analyze both texts in their expression of Theology of the People’s principles, developed in Argentina in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Exploration, hermeneutic interpretation and an analysis of Pope Francis’ way of textually connecting people and the environment in Laudato Si’ and Laudate Deum will show how he was a mystic in the tradition of Theology of the People, who emphasized in his ecological messages people’s faith and their relation with the earth.

1. Introduction

Having reached the first quarter of the new millennium, it is not news that the earth is undergoing global warming, that extractivist economies pose a threat to healthy and sustainable life, and that the business of wars that enrich a few and impoverish millions devastates both people and their environment. In such a context, the late Pope Francis was a leader who, in a prophetic fashion, spoke up about the need to renew people’s relationship with the earth. His voice can still be heard in his encyclical Laudato Si’, issued in 2015, and in the exhortation he wrote eight years later, Laudate Deum (Francis 2023). Pope Francis’ contemplation and reflection upon current issues that affect the connection between human beings and the environment show that he was a mystic “of open eyes”, in the line of Johann Baptist Metz (1918–2019). Slaubaugh (2021) argues that “For Metz, a true mysticism, one in which a person enters the mystery of their own existence as a subject in God’s presence, is always a mysticism that sees more of life and not less” (Slaubaugh 2021, p. 1). From this perspective, the fact that Pope Francis paid attention and “opened his eyes” to the contemporary state of the world, presents him as a type of mystic who wishes not only to find communion with God but also with those suffering.

To be a subject before God is to stand before God fully as oneself, related always and already to all other subjects. The individual is always unique, but always also realized in communion. The paradox of particularity and universality is a constant thread woven throughout Metz’s vision of a ‘mysticism of open eyes’ which sees the universality of the dangerous memory of Christ always in its particular iterations in history.

(Slaubaugh 2021, p. 3)

This apparent paradox and its manifestations throughout history had a theological development of its own sort in the Argentine context, if one considers the Theology of the People as a movement that developed out of the need to unite the contemplation of God and action in service of His People.

This article aims to analyze both Laudato Si’ and Laudate Deum from the perspective of the Theology of the People, a movement developed in Argentina in the 1960s, which is sometimes considered to be part of Theology of Liberation (Scannone 2016, p. 124). The objective of this paper is to show how Pope Francis emphasized the need to relate people’s faith and culture and their relationship with the environment, and in this attitude, proper of “open eyes” mysticism, he carried forward his early contact with Theology of the People.

Other researchers and reviewers have connected both Laudato Si’ and Laudate Deum in that they both reflect upon the increased environmental danger hovering over us. Knox (2023) draws an interesting line from the encyclical to the exhortation stating that “in the eight years since the publication of Laudato Si’, what has changed is that global climate change has become a climate crisis”, which is why the second text is not just a reflection or a teaching document but a call to action. Knox points out that “Never before have people had so much information about the harmful effects of our activity. Yet our destruction of the natural systems that support us is worsening by the year.” Based on Pope Francis’ exhortation, he goes on to explain that there is a growing gap between “family and community efforts to reduce consumption, wastage and pollution and what is happening (or rather not happening) with the political sector” (Knox 2023) and those in power, who would seem unaware of the crisis the Pope denounced.

Fernández-Reyes (2023) underlines the main tenets of both the encyclical and the exhortation, sustaining that while the former was concerned with “the common house”, the latter is specifically aware of the dangers of climate change. The author points out the usefulness of Pope Francis’ text to counterargue denialist discourse, and he stresses that one of the main contributions of these texts is not only what they present regarding the main themes, but the fact that a spiritual leader speaks up about them.

von Büren (2024) reads Laudato Si’ having as his framework the Social Doctrine of the Church as “a locus of epistemic encounter” (p. 44),1 which includes three steps: watching, judging, acting. The author affirms that the encyclical, as part of the teachings of the Church, points out the need to take care of the environment and its place in God’s plan (45). According to von Büren, “an integral ecology […] includes both the environment and the human […] which incorporates varied epistemic perspectives and an educational process constant in time” (p. 57). He then goes on to show how Laudate Deum, though of a lesser hierarchy (as it is not an encyclical, but an exhortation), emphasizes Pope Franis’ concerns for the environmental crisis, which deepened in the eight years between the two texts. Von Büren explains that underlying the exhortation is not only a strong advocacy of politics, a noble enterprise to which Christians are called (p. 65), but especially a theological frame which implies “a right philosophy of nature open to the theology of Creation, which allows us to understand the environmental crisis in the context of God’s Project for Creation, in which Christ becomes its definite explanation” (p. 66). Von Büren concludes that Laudato Si’ and Laudate Deum both prompt “Christians and all people of good will to assume responsibility in the face of contemporary challenges” (p. 67).

O’Neill (2024) explores the way both documents by Pope Francis present his views on an integral ecology on the one hand and the technocratic paradigm on the other. While these are rival paradigms, O’Neill sustains that Pope Francis presents an ecological spirituality or a humanistic ecology, based on three principles: “the option for the poor, intergenerational responsibility, and respect for intrinsic value in nonhuman nature” (p. 258). Comparing the Pope’s writings with J. Habermas’s contributions, O’Neill emphasizes that even the post-secular philosopher has come to acknowledge that “significant social reform must be underwritten by our deepest, religious motivations” (p. 259). In its respect for other beliefs, and the acceptance of the need to recognize dignity and rights, the author concludes that Laudato Si’ calls for hope if things are to change (p. 261).

Following these antecedents, our own approach to Laudato Si’ and Laudate Deum incorporates notions derived from the Theology of the People in its understanding of the texts, in order to conclude that the Argentine theological line that Father Bergoglio, who would later become Pope Francis, absorbed and developed in his youth, would reappear in his papal years and may offer new ways to explore both texts related to ecology and Pope Francis’ role as a mystic of open eyes, rooted in the Theology of the People.

2. Theology of the People

2.1. An Argentine Approach to Theology

Theology of the People, “Teología del pueblo” in Spanish, is an Argentine current, which developed in the 1960s and 1970s, much influenced by the ecclesial, historical and political context of the time. Far from being only a line of theological thought, action became a central part of the movement. Hoevel (2021) defines this trend as “an Argentine current of theological thought and pastoral action, originated and led in its origins by three outstanding figures: theologians Lucio Gera and Rafael Tello, and philosopher Juan Carlos Scannone” (p. 91). There is controversy over whether Theology of the People is or is not part of Theology of Liberation. While many thinkers and theologians, among them Fr. Scannone himself, define it as such a current, it should be noticed that the Theology of the People does not adhere to Marxist interpretations, as will be explained below. In fact, Theology of the People can be seen as one other current, which sprang up in Latin America after the Second Vatican Council. Loland (2021) considers that, while the Bishops’ Conference at Medellín in 1968 signaled the first step towards a contextualized church, Liberation Theology is no longer seen as a univocal expression of the Latin American Church in the late 1960s and 1970s:

While the term “liberation theology” was not in use at the time of the Second General Conference of the Latin American episcopate in Medellin in 1968, this effort of the Latin American bishops to translate the Council to their regional context is commonly considered as the founding event of the movement. New research has nevertheless questioned the view of the Medellín conference as the univocal expression of Christian progressivism […]

(Loland 2021, p. 290)

Loland’s situated explanation of the origins of Theology of Liberation and the fact that Medellín did not imply the only path followed by progressive Christians becomes relevant when trying to understand Fr. Bergoglio’s itinerary. Loland affirms that in the 1970s, “As the Jesuits’ provincial in Argentina, Bergoglio sought to marginalize liberation theology, reinstall pre-Vatican traditions and dismantle the new community that the Jesuits Francisco Jalics and Orlando Yorio [two Jesuit priests] had installed among the poor” (p. 296). Scheper-Hughes and Hughes (2015) have also pointed out Bergoglio’s distance from the Theology of Liberation, as well as his journey from a quite traditionalist Christian outlook in his young days in Argentina to the one Pope for many Catholicisms (p. 64) he came to be, after “a more tolerant and humble prelate, not without contradictions but clearly on a different path” after a solitary two-year stay in the Argentine mediterranean province of Córdoba (p. 68).

Despite the spotted differences between Liberation Theology and the Theology of the People, Scannone (1983) places the latter as one current within Theology of Liberation, though he clearly states that the Marxist terminology is inadequate and favors categories taken from Latin American culture and history (p. 279). Among such terms is the notion of “pueblo”. According to Scannone (1983), there are four lines within Theology of Liberation, which can be defined as Theology of Liberation from Pastoral Praxis, Theology of Liberation from Revolutionary Praxis, Theology of Liberation from Historical Practice, and Theology of Liberation from Cultural Practice (or Theology of the People).

Fr. Gera (1976) speaks of the term pueblo, or people in English translation, as an ethical notion:

The first condition to belong to a people is being conscious that one needs other; for the poor, this is a living, hurting consciousness. This is why the poor are more capable of solidarity -of giving and of expecting from others-, more capable of ‘being in a people’. Because ‘people’, after all, is an ethical reality which calls for profound moral attitudes. We call ‘people’ the multitude of the poor.

(p. 111)

Gera (1976, pp. 112–13) also speaks of the People of God’s need to be incarnated in all peoples on earth, among all human beings and in each culture (thus the Catholic name of the Church). After analyzing the ways in which such an incarnation has taken place in Latin America, Gera is able to point out the pastoral side of Theology of the People. He states that, “the historical evangelization of the subcontinent has reached the roots of the culture of its peoples” (p. 122). He goes on to affirm that, even if there are other religious minorities, both Christian and non-Christian, which should be accepted in solidarity, “the Church should attend […] to a people which, in its religiosity, is Christian and ecclesial”. This should be, in his view, the basis to carry out a pastoral work that “moves the people, in its religiosity, in the crises, changes, and historical challenges of its context” (123). Scannone (1983) explains that in the Theology of the People, “Pueblo is the communal subject of a history and a culture […] When one says subject of a history (not of history!) one thinks of certain concrete historical experiences -such as Argentine or Latin American, from its origins-, a collective conscience in a communal historical project -not necessarily made explicit”. (Scannone 1983, p. 277). This historical and cultural connotation of the word “pueblo” (or people) is what distinguishes The theology of the People from other currents of Latin American Theology (mainly, from Theology of Liberation, for which the term includes references to class, from a Marxist perspective).

Probably because of this connection with local, historical, cultural categories, it has always proved difficult to convey in English (or in other languages) what the name “Teología del pueblo” implies. Fr. Scannone has reflected upon the weight of the word “pueblo”, which translates as “people”, though the connotations of the Spanish and the English terms are quite different. “The closest term in English would be ‘the peoples,’ but even this is inaccurate. The Spanish version of the word […] refers both to nations—the peoples of Germany, United States, Argentina, for instance—but also to the poor, those who live on the margins, on the outskirts, the populous sectors as opposed to a country’s elites” (San Martín 2019). Yet, the option for the poor in the Theology of the People has not been tied to liberalism or Marxism: on the contrary, according to Scannone, history is understood from the perspective of culture, and culture as a creation of the people: “The evangelization of culture and the inculturation of the Gospel are both key in the theology of the people, as both a theological and pastoral issue” (San Martín 2019). This explains why the Theology of the People is also known as theology of culture (Luciani 2019, p. 212): in Argentina, during the Second Vatican Council era, the terms culture and people are closely connected to the option for the poor, understood as “the way in which the poor live faith and religion, without disregarding the spiritual assistance of the poor” (Azcuy 2021, p. 40). It might be useful to consider Cuda’s explanation of what the word “pueblo” implied in the Argentine context of the 1970s. “Theology of the People […] reinterprets the category of people as the popular part of the people. In the philosophical sense of incarnated particularity which takes part in what Catholic theology calls the ‘universality of the People of God’” (Cuda 2013, p. 16). This definition helps better understand the relation between the word pueblo (people) in its cultural situated perspective and in its connection to the Catholic view of the People of God.

In the context of the radicalization of Latin American politics and the growth of Liberation Theology, Hoevel points out the links that many Catholics, influenced by the Vatican Council, had with Peronism (p. 94). The COEPAL (Comisión Episcopal de Pastoral, the Episcopal Commission for Pastoral Practice), founded in 1966, was crucial in the creation of the Theology of the People, which adapted some notions of the Second Vatican Council (particularly, that of “the people of God”) to the cultural, social and political Argentine context. Influenced by the MSTM (Movimiento de Sacerdotes del Tercer Mundo, or Movement of Priests of the Third World) and by revolutionary Peronism, Gera came back from the Second Episcopal Conference at Medellín in 1968 with a new relevant notion that would permeate Latin American, and Argentine theology: that of “liberation” (Hoevel 2021, pp. 94–95).

Scannone (2016) explains the seemingly complex connection between COEPAL and the Argentine political context of the day: “The Argentine political context of the times of the COEPAL included the military dictatorship of Onganía, the proscription of Peronism since 1955, the repression of the Peronist labor movement, the emergence of future guerrilla groups, and a new phenomenon: the fact that not a few intellectuals, teachers, and progressive university students supported the Peronism of that day as a popular form of resistance to the military and the social protest movement” (Scannone 2016, p. 120).

Because of the social and political context of the early 1970s, and the central role that MSTM and other groups had in COEPAL, Hoevel stresses that to Gera and his fellows, “pastoral work must imply an option for a liberation project that is simultaneously religious and socio-political” (Hoevel 2021, p. 97). Theology and politics are necessarily mixed in this view of the People of God. While Liberation Theology centers around the idea of the poor as the people, Theology of the People instead, includes the poor in the wider notion of the People. Yet, the main thinkers of the movement (Gera, Tello, Scannone) provide various interpretations and definitions of what the People is. Hoevel outlines some, among them the People of God in the conventional ecclesiastical sense, the people as a national concept, or as a cultural group, among other definitions (99). In addition, the group was also influenced by Enrique Dussel, the philosopher of liberation for whom the “people” are those who, despite differences, are united in the praxis of faith and the search of religious liberation (Hoevel 2021, p. 100). As stated above, Scannone himself acknowledges that while the word “people” may have different interpretations, COEPAL understood it as “the entire people as a nation” (Scannone 2016, p. 121).

These influences, together with the political and historical situation of the 1970s in Argentina, led Gera et al. to consider that the Peronist people could be seen as a representation of the Christian people as well (Hoevel 2021, p. 102), even if they did not necessarily live the precepts of the institutional church. This is the turning point in the definition of the People. According to Hoevel, while the institutional Church is imbricated with the individualist tendency of Modern times (p. 104), theologians of the People search for a pastoral reform that leads to a liberation that is at once religious and political, in the Latin American context (p. 106).

2.2. Bergoglio and the Theology of the People

Cuda (2013) has pointed out the continuity between Bergoglio’s adherence to the Theology of the People in the 1970s and his thought as reflected in papal documents of the 21st century: “Apart from several points of contact between Bergoglio’s affirmations and Theology of the People, there is also continuity and coherence in Francis’ thoughts along time. The idea of conciliation in unity as the method to solve social conflict marks from the very beginning his own interpretation of Latin American Theology” (Cuda 2013, p. 18).

While Hoevel affirms that there is no unmistakable evidence of what degree of influence Theology of the People had on the future Pope Francis, it is well known that Bergoglio was a disciple of father Scannone, a Jesuit priest who was an outstanding figure of the movement. Scannone had absorbed the program of COEPAL and developed his own liberationist philosophy around it (Hoevel 2021, p. 110): his ideas and those of other thinkers with whom he had ties can be read in Stromata, a Jesuit journal in which Bergoglio was also involved. In 1973, the future Pope Francis became Provincial of the Argentine Jesuits; and a year later he gave a speech at Universidad del Salvador (the Jesuit university in Buenos Aires) in which one can trace his connection with the Theology of the People (Hoevel 2021, p. 111). The context was not an easy one. Ivereigh (2014) has carefully pointed out the main tendencies within the Jesuit order in the 1970s (the progressive groups committed to the Marxist outlook of Theology of Liberation and the more conservative group) Bergoglio’s view, though, takes an original stand in that he rejected Marxism and proposed a program that was more closely connected to the Theology of the People in its cultural and historical approach. The political context, marked by different strands and currents within Peronism and the way Bergoglio related to them has also been studied by Ivereigh, who has established how the young Jesuit was more closely connected to the “Guardia de hierro” line, in a growingly conflicting political context.

Devoto (2015) analyzes in detail how Bergoglio acted from 1973 to around 1976, how he tried to keep Universidad del Salvador under an open democratic perspective, which in the political field implied “trying to preserve certain spaces at the price of several instances of mediation” (Devoto 2015, p. 99). In the difficult Argentine context of the 1970s, Bergoglio’s views were not devoid of a certain political bias (Devoto 2015, p. 87), which speaks well of a committed priest, as can be seen in the words he read at Universidad del Salvador in 1974 (Bergoglio 1993). The Charter of Principles signed and read by Father Bergoglio in 1974 has a significant title, underlined by a sort of subtitle, “Old and New Universidad del Salvador. Its continuity in the Jesuit spirit” (p. 25). The document outlines three traits that may be understood in line with the Theology of the People: fight against atheism, advancement through a return to the sources, and universalism across differences. Regarding the first, Bergoglio points out that the Faith of the people (“our” people, he says), “is a concrete and daily practice of love and solidarity” (p. 26), which is “the only source of deep change, the only basis of a revolution for justice and peace” (p. 27). In relation to the second principle, he states that foreign models are not to be imitated; on the contrary, there should be a “critical continuity of national popular movements, which are the protagonists of modern Argentina” (p. 27). This reference to popular movements of a concrete nation, Argentina, has led to various interpretations in connection to the author, the Jesuits and/or the Church’s connections with or support of Peronism, though definitely, the reference is not explicit in this text. Read half a century later, one may concentrate on the way this paragraph relates to the next one. In it, Bergoglio stresses the idea that a Latin American renaissance should go back to its Indigenous–Hispanic tradition as the source of its revolutionary change. Finally, based on the Company’s missionary history throughout the world, in the third principle, Bergoglio defines social apostolate as religious immersion in the life of the Peoples, to carry out justice (p. 28). It is remarkably interesting that, though he refers to the missions to propagate the Gospel, Bergoglio emphasizes that “the Peoples” are agents of change, and that the Company should be at the service of the Peoples (p. 28). The document reads as a series of expanded notes; yet, in its simplicity it is evident that the young Argentine priest, already an important figure within the Jesuit community, states the need not to underestimate popular faith, to be rooted in local culture and history (wherever one is), and to make justice building a society that is more deeply humane. This explicit reference to a situated incarnated faith and religiosity clearly suggests the impact that the Theology of the People had on the young Bergoglio.

Scannone (2016) has shown that Pope Francis is a true representative of the Theology of the People, and he concludes that this perspective of the Pope may be found, if one reads carefully, even in his texts:

[N]ot only what is said but also the pragmatic force of how something is said belong to the meaning of a text. In other words, we must also attend to the existential attitude and spiritual mettle, to the affective tone and the lived experience (vivencia) that accompanies the text. From that we can elicit objective indexes in the style of the text, in the repetition of words, and so forth.

(p. 134)

Luciani (2019) has also reflected upon Pope Francis’ background and how his pastoral thought is embedded in the Theology of the People. Pastoral action cannot be separated from promoting people, who are subjects of their own culture:

His invitation is as such to re-establish social bonds and generate a culture of encounter capable of resisting the increasingly fragmented culture, promoted by globalization. […] The conversion of the church springs from its commitment to promote and build citizenship and democracy in the world, making it so that each individual and institution commits itself to the development of the poor (people-as-poor) so that all may be subjects (people-as-nation) and not objects or recipients.

(p. 217)

2.3. Implications of Mysticism of Open Eyes to Reflect upon Nature

If the Theology of the People considers peoples as historically and culturally embedded, we suggest that there is a link with Metz’s mysticism of open eyes, which in turn develops from his conception of a political theology. Metz (1980) claims that the theology of the subject is not one of isolated beings. On the contrary, based on biblical religion, he states that subjects relate to one another in solidarity: “The universal solidarity that existed among biblical subjects, then, is a fundamental category in the political theology of the subject. […] It is the form in which those subjects existed in God’s presence and through him”. (p. 61) Contemporary Christians may follow up that solidarity of old times, and in so doing, carry out a praxis full of hope. Metz suggests that “theology must be able to define and call upon a praxis in which Christians can break through the complex social, historical and psychological conditions governing history and society. What is needed, then, is a praxis of faith in mystical and political imitation” (p. 77). Thus, spirituality is not a way to escape the world but, on the contrary, to be involved in our context and to have eyes wide open to what is going on, to break through whatever that is with solidarity.

Serrán-Pagán y Fuentes (2025) recalls in the Preface of an issue of Religions devoted to Mysticism and Social Justice that “Contemplatives, mystics and sages are generally portrayed as people who withdraw from society, escaping from their social responsibilities to better the world” (p. ix). Yet, mysticism (whether in the Catholic or in other traditions) can also stem from a contemplation and appreciation of the divine in all beings, so that taking action to achieve social justice may follow as an integral part of mysticism itself. “The great varieties of mystics have contributed with their wisdom and their witnessing to confront the most urgent issues of their times. In the pluralistic and global world in which we live today, we must try our best to address these ecological, economic, social, political, and religious problems” (Serrán-Pagán y Fuentes 2025, p. ix). This is the perspective that Metz develops in his own notion of mysticism, which just as the political theology he defines, also has biblical roots. He reminds us that “biblical Christian mysticism is not really a mysticism of closed eyes, but an open-eyed mysticism that obligates us to perceive more acutely the suffering of others” (Metz 1998, p. 69). Mysticism of open eyes, then, calls for engagement and responsibility:

Christian witnessing to God is guided through and through by political spirituality, a political mysticism. Not a mysticism of political power and political domination, but rather—to speak metaphorically—a mysticism of open or opened eyes. […] It is a mysticism that especially makes visible all invisible and inconvenient suffering, and—convenient or not—pays attention to it and takes responsibility for it, for the sake of a God who is a friend to human beings.

(Metz 1998, pp. 162–63)

Keeping our eyes open implies taking responsibility and engaging in action (praxis) to bring about change. Metz (2013) suggests that “The Christian experience of God is intrinsically joined to its perception of other people’s destiny. This is why, at its core, Christian mysticism is not a mysticism of closed eyes, but of painfully open eyes. It calls for a special practice of seeing, overcoming our innate difficulty to see and our human narcissisms” (Metz 2013, p. 59). These painfully open eyes that he demands, prompt a critical self-questioning of the way in which Christians have overemphasized the idea of sin and left aside a deep consideration of suffering; or how we have focused so much on Christ’s passion, forgetting that there is also a myriad of other passions or suffering of unknown, unnamed people; or the way in which Christinas have severed Christ’s passion from the suffering of humanity (Metz 2013, pp. 61–62). The answer to such self-interrogation is what Metz calls a mysticism of compassion. Such is the key to understanding what it means to be missionaries in the contemporary world, where spreading the Christian faith could be considered disrespectful of other faiths. Metz states that “Divine passion must be recognized and consummated in our compassion, in our intensified disposition to a compassionate perception of other people’s suffering” (Metz 2013, p. 85). Such suffering, as is known today, may be caused by irresponsibility towards the environment. Metz reflects upon the way in which political mysticism is connected to nature, which “must be safeguarded by a reflection about our historical responsibility for nature, so that it is not exploited without restraint” (Metz 1980, p. 106).

In the next sections of this article, we aim at analyzing discourse in order to outline the ways in which the two texts of our corpus show the underlying ideas of the Theology of the People and how they can be considered as the written praxis of a mystic of open eyes. We aim to show that the Theology of the People may prove an enlightening theoretical framework from which to read Laudato Si’ (Francis 2015) and Laudate Deum (Francis 2023). Our hypothesis is that the two texts are imbued with categories from the Argentine theological current which Fr. Bergoglio absorbed in the 1970s, which in turn connects the Pope’s view to mysticism of open eyes.

3. Two Papal Documents: Nature Under the Light of Mysticism of Open Eyes and of the Theology of the People

In a homily delivered in November 2024, Pope Francis refers to the mysticism of open eyes and presents it as the way to go in our world, to decide what path our praxis should take:

A twentieth-century theologian said that the Christian faith must generate in us “a mysticism with open eyes,” not a spirituality that flees from the world but—on the contrary—a faith that opens its eyes to the sufferings of the world and the unhappiness of the poor in order to show Christ’s compassion. Do I feel the same compassion as the Lord before the poor, before those who have no work, who have no food, who are marginalized by society? We must look not only at the great problems of world poverty, but at the small things all of us can do each day by our lifestyle; by our attention to and caring for the environment in which we live; by the tenacious pursuit of justice; by sharing our goods with those who are poorer; by a social and political engagement in order to improve the world that surrounds us.

(Francis 2024)

In a significant way, this paragraph presents the deep connection Pope Francis sees between contemplation and action and between such an action applied even to the environment and the effects that it may have on other people’s lives. That is, caring for nature can be understood as action in solidarity.

This section of our paper explores both the encyclical and the exhortation issued in 2015 and 2023 respectively by Pope Francis, to find traces of the Theology of the People that may shed a new light in the understanding of Laudato Si’ and Laudate Deum. Read after his Pontificate is over, it is possible to discern not only the line of continuity that has been mentioned above from his 1970s’ texts and his papal documents but also a deep coherence in his consideration of nature and society as part of a life lived in the common house. In fact, in the opening paragraphs of his encyclical Fratelli Tutti (2020), after acknowledging that it was St. Francis of Assisi who inspired him to write Laudato Si’, he goes on to say that the saint has prompted him “once more to devote this new Encyclical to fraternity and social friendship. Francis felt himself a brother to the sun, the sea and the wind, yet he knew that he was even closer to those of his own flesh. Wherever he went, he sowed seeds of peace and walked alongside the poor, the abandoned, the infirm and the outcast, the least of his brothers and sisters” (Francis 2020, para. 2). Keeping our eyes open to see those who walk beside us, with us, is necessary so that solidarity has a place to break through.

3.1. Laudato Si’, a Call for Justice

Laudato Si’ is the first encyclical attributed to Pope Francis (Lumen Fidei had a first version written by Pope Benedict XVI). In Laudato Si’, Pope Francis recalls St. Francis’ concern not only for nature but also for others, in what we could call in present terms, an ecological and ecumenical outlook:

He was particularly concerned for God’s creation and for the poor and outcast. He loved, and was deeply loved for his joy, his generous self-giving, his openheartedness. He was a mystic and a pilgrim who lived in simplicity and in wonderful harmony with God, with others, with nature and with himself. He shows us just how inseparable the bond is between concern for nature, justice for the poor, commitment to society, and interior peace.

(Francis 2015, para. 10)

This description of St. Francis’ legacy centers around the value of harmony with God, with nature, and with people (including one’s own inner self). It could be said that if human beings are at peace with themselves, then they will connect harmoniously with God, and in love of Him, connect with His creation (nature and fellow beings). Pope Francis understands that the selflessness and simplicity that St. Francis’ lifestyle represents are guidelines in modern times as well. The “language of fraternity and beauty” (para. 11) that il Poverello of Assisi used to relate not only to people but also to earth and all elements of creation may prompt us to experience such a connection as well, so that “sobriety and care will well up spontaneously” (para. 11). One may ask, rhetorically, whether sobriety does not lead to justice, since each person uses only what is necessary, leaving behind consumerism (and its consequent overexploitation of resources and unequal distribution of goods). This is the same type of connection that Metz points out when he stresses that “the category of responsibility for one’s own actions, for others and for nature clearly demonstrate that civilization must justify itself in politics” (Metz 1980, p. 106). Fraternity implies solidarity, caring for others and for nature, which are made evident to us only if we are capable of contemplating in the line of open-eyed mysticism, which will prompt us to action. Political praxis inspired in service to others, in solidarity, is a central part of Pope Francis’ thought, which appears in other texts of his magisterium, as when he states, for example, “Good politics will seek ways of building communities at every level of social life, in order to recalibrate and reorient globalization and thus avoid its disruptive effects” (Francis 2020, para. 182). Read in the network of all his texts, climate change and other issues that affect the common house are among the disruptive effects pointed out here. So, how is it that we may take responsibility to change such effects?

In Laudato Si’, Pope Francis makes his appeal for the care of what he calls our common home. Going beyond the traditional definition of the Catholic Church as the universal Church (an etymologic definition), he makes a universal call as “All of us can cooperate as instruments of God for the care of creation, each according to his or her own culture, experience, involvements and talents” (para. 14). It is interesting that, even if he of course dwells on the Judeo-Christian tradition and, what is more, makes this plea through an encyclical, a type of document—and a genre—that has historically been considered infallible, dealing in many cases with faith-related issues, in Laudato Si’, Pope Francis takes up a more modern tradition, that of social encyclicals in the line started by Pope Leo XII in 1891 with Rerum Novarum.

The encyclical addresses pollution and climate change, the issue of water, the loss of biodiversity, the decline in the quality of human life and the breakdown of society, and the growing inequality on earth as the main concerns that affect the world today. In a prophetic manner, Pope Francis makes all who may hear responsible and calls for action, both at the level of governments, NGOs and institutions, and at the level of communities. He states that, “we need to strengthen the conviction that we are one human family. There are no frontiers or barriers, political or social, behind which we can hide, still less is there room for the globalization of indifference” (para. 52). While he offers a careful depiction of the variety of causes that have led to environmental crisis, Pope Francis is aware that the Church only will not be able to offer a plausible solution to such evil. On the contrary, “respect must also be shown for the various cultural riches of different peoples, their art and poetry, their interior life and spirituality. If we are genuinely concerned to develop an ecology capable of remedying the damage we have done, no branch of the sciences and no form of wisdom can be left out, and that includes religion and the language particular to it” (para. 63). Religious and political answers are needed when the conflicts derived from ecological issues challenge us all.

In this invitation to a fruitful dialogue among religions, philosophical currents, arts and cultures, he draws on the biblical narrative and symbolism to explain that “that human life is grounded in three fundamental and closely intertwined relationships: with God, with our neighbour and with the earth itself” (para. 66) and that, from ancient times, this harmony has been disrupted by sin. This reliance upon the biblical narrative recalls Metz’s understanding of justice as central to the new political theology, which is rooted in the biblical tradition as well (Metz 1998, p. 36). Restoration of peaceful relationships implies that all human beings act responsibly, both with each other, towards God, and with His creation, namely, the earth and all on it. Throughout the text, Pope Francis incorporates into his encyclical the words of Canadian, Japanese and Brazilian bishops, among others, (paras. 85, 88) to reflect upon the way even the tiniest elements of nature manifest God. Anchored in the same Catholic belief, each nation and culture has, at the same time, their own concerns and answers, which may be heard respectfully in order to find the key to harmonious life in the world. In addition, this sense of awe for creation leads Pope Francis to point out the need to see our fellow humans in the same light:

It is clearly inconsistent to combat trafficking in endangered species while remaining completely indifferent to human trafficking, unconcerned about the poor, or undertaking to destroy another human being deemed unwanted. This compromises the very meaning of our struggle for the sake of the environment.

(para. 91)

Awe at contemplating God’s creation (human beings among them) clearly connects mysticism to praxis. Contemplation and action cannot be severed in Pope Francis’ view, as well as in many other modern mystics (one could mention Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton, whom the Pope referred to in his address at the United States Capitol in 2015). In his encyclical, he even goes on to quote a document issued in 1987 by the Conference of Dominican Bishops, who stated that “Peace, justice and the preservation of creation are three absolutely interconnected themes, which cannot be separated and treated individually without once again falling into reductionism” (para. 92). The analysis of Pope Francis’ discourse shows this is the pivot point around which he revolves: interconnection, interrelatedness, and intertwined relations. He goes back repeatedly to the way God, creation (the earth and all on it) and people are imbricated. In the face of the technocratic paradigm and the misleading ways in which anthropocentrism “continues to stand in the way of shared understanding and of any effort to strengthen social bonds” (para. 116), the encyclical proposes an “integral ecology”, which considers human and social aspects as well. Based on the crucial point of the interconnection mentioned before, Pope Francis indicates that there is only “one complex crisis which is both social and environmental. Strategies for a solution demand an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature” (para. 139). His view of ecology, then, departs from an idyllic view of nature inherited from nineteenth-century Romanticism, to include instead both peoples and their cultures, patrimony and active participation of the community.

Once again, if one considers that mysticism of open eyes call for praxis to achieve justice for all, such a view of nature, culture and communal action reflect what type of mystic Pope Francis was. His acknowledgement of cultural diversity and the responsibility of considering contexts and cultures when devising solutions to the ecological crisis are a central part of the humane just society Pope Francis preaches for: “There is a need to respect the rights of peoples and cultures, and to appreciate that the development of a social group presupposes an historical process which takes place within a cultural context and demands the constant and active involvement of local people from within their proper culture. Nor can the notion of the quality of life be imposed from without, for quality of life must be understood within the world of symbols and customs proper to each human group” (para. 144). Once again, the text revolves around the idea of a cultural ecosystem: the environment is not only the world around people but also the world of people. “The disappearance of a culture can be just as serious, or even more serious, than the disappearance of a species of plant or animal. The imposition of a dominant lifestyle linked to a single form of production can be just as harmful as the altering of ecosystems” (para. 145). Pope Francis relates this importance of cultures and heritage to the specific case of native peoples for whom the land “is not a commodity” (para. 146) but a gift given by God; yet the modern world pushes them to leave it behind in order to advance large-scale agricultural or mining projects that would eventually make those cultures disappear. Discourse analysis of the encyclical, then, reflects how it proceeds spiraling around the same ideas which, it is evident, promotes not just “green” ecology but also a cultural understanding of the issue, which should bring about justice. “A network of solidarity and belonging” (para. 148) may even counterweight the disadvantages of chaotic environments. Metz (1980) spoke of the biblical roots of solidarity and the need for contemporary Christians to go back to the origins. In turn, Pope Francis relates solidarity to the way human beings interact with each other and with the context. The text underlines not only the value of human community but also the need to feel the harmony within. In his development of what a human ecology is, Pope Francis includes thoughts on design, urban planning, home-owning and public transportation. Solidarity among classes and generations, centered around the common good, is the basic principle that guides the reflection on a human and integral ecology (paras. 156–60). To achieve such an ecology, dialogue among peoples, nations, religions and paradigms is necessary. The suggested path is to slow down, reflect, and contemplate what surrounds us: “Inner peace is closely related to care for ecology and for the common good because, lived out authentically, it is reflected in a balanced lifestyle together with a capacity for wonder which takes us to a deeper understanding of life. […] An integral ecology includes taking time to recover a serene harmony with creation, reflecting on our lifestyle and our ideals, and contemplating the Creator who lives among us and surrounds us” (para. 225). In the progression of ideas throughout the encyclical, which as has been said, develops in concentric circles or in a spiral fashion, Pope Francis commends us to be at peace with ourselves, with each other, with the world around us and with God. Such a spiritual view of the world surrounding us (including mature) presents him as a mystic of open eyes, for whom suffering and poverty of the people calls for engagement. As Prof. Borghessi states in an interview, “All of Bergoglio’s spirituality, following St. Ignatius, is a spirituality of the Incarnation. For the Pope, the Christian is immersed in the flesh of the world, also noticeably immersed. There is no witness without seeing, hearing, touching, embracing” (Borghessi and Pentin 2018).

3.2. Laudate Deum, the People and the Environment Revisited

Eight years after issuing Laudato Si’, Pope Francis went back to the topic of ecology from the perspective of justice in the 2023 exhortation Laudate Deum. The exhortation is divided into sections that address “Global climate change”, “A growing technocratic paradigm”, “The weakness of international politics”, the successes as well as the failures of Climate Conferences, and the spiritual background of the need to go on preaching and moving to reflection about the common house. Because of the genre (exhortation), this document is more focused on an explicit denunciation of the current situation and an urgent call for praxis. The acceleration of changes (climatic and also technological) leads him to speak up, once again, to make people reflect upon the ways in which people believe they are masters of their surroundings, while in fact, this will turn against them in a tragic fashion. “Everything that exists ceases to be a gift for which we should be thankful, esteem and cherish, and instead becomes a slave, prey to any whim of the human mind and its capacities” (Francis 2023, para. 22). The human mind, nevertheless, should work towards harmony or, in the words he uses in this document, “equilibrium”. Once again, this term resonates with the echoes of the word “justice”, the political theology defined by Metz (1998), and the need to be contemplatives in action, answering the call to a mysticism of open eyes. It is highly relevant that, while one could imagine the exhortation to be an ecological call (such as the documents issued and signed during Climate Conferences), in fact Pope Francis exhorts people to Praise God. Such is the title of the document, which immediately points out the relation between contemplation (to praise God, one must contemplate) and to see the divine in what and in who surround us. Human beings must be recognized as a part of nature. If we acknowledge God as the Creator, then in our praising Him for His creation implies opening our eyes in awe and in solidarity. Human life, intelligence and freedom are elements of the nature that enriches our planet, part of its internal workings and its equilibrium. For this reason, a healthy ecology is also the result of interaction between human beings and the environment, as occurs in indigenous cultures and has occurred for centuries in different regions of the earth (paras. 26–27).

Indigenous cultures, local cultures, people who have cherished their heritage across generations, are set as an example to go back to the ancient harmonious relation among all beings on earth. The old 20th-century ways of attempting to solve problems have proved ineffective in the face of a technocratic, consumerist, and meritocratic society; once more, this text pleads for the creation of “spaces for conversation, consultation, arbitration, conflict resolution and supervision, and, in the end, a sort of increased “democratization” in the global context, so that the various situations can be expressed and included” (para. 43). The world is not uniform. Cultures and peoples each have their own ways of seeing the issues at stake and providing solutions, and it is only through respectful interaction that a global-scale crisis may find ways out. His revision of Climate Conferences, in the fourth section of the document, proves that such events can be meaningful only if all parties involved are heard and cooperate. In calling people to reconcile with the world, Pope Francis makes readers aware of the fact that “today we see ourselves forced to realize that it is only possible to sustain a ‘situated anthropocentrism’. To recognize, in other words, that human life is incomprehensible and unsustainable without other creatures” (para. 67). If the general message of the exhortation is synthesized in the title (that we should praise God), the Pope appeals to people to “accompany this pilgrimage of reconciliation with the world that is our home and to help make it more beautiful, because that commitment has to do with our personal dignity and highest values” (para. 69). While he does not mention him explicitly, Pope Francis establishes a dialogue with Metz when he says, “At the same time, I cannot deny that it is necessary to be honest and recognize that the most effective solutions will not come from individual efforts alone, but above all from major political decisions on the national and international level” (para. 69). Individuals may act, but praxis should be communal: as quoted above, Metz writes about how “the category of responsibility for one’s own actions, for others and for nature clearly demonstrate that civilization must justify itself in politics” (Metz 1980, p. 106). What Metz calls the “social and political conscience in the interest of others’ suffering” (Metz 1980, p. 115) relates to what Pope Francis prompts people to do in order to change routines (which may have a far-reaching effect, if the change is cultural, that is, a change of the people, not just of a few individuals):

The mere fact that personal, family and community habits are changing is contributing to greater concern about the unfulfilled responsibilities of the political sectors and indignation at the lack of interest shown by the powerful. Let us realize, then, that even though this does not immediately produce a notable effect from the quantitative standpoint, we are helping to bring about large processes of transformation rising from deep within society.

(Francis 2023, para. 71)

Once more, the people (a historically and locally situated society) may produce changes that will positively affect others, in that those changes are not imposed by foreign agendas but become part of the peoples’ cultures themselves. The idea of memory (which is connected to knowledge of the past) and of change (which enables us to foresee a plausible future) can be analyzed with reference to Metz, too:

The Christian memory of suffering is in its theological implications an anticipatory memory: it intends the anticipation of a particular future for the suffering, the hopeless, the oppressed, the injured and the useless of this earth. Hence this memory of suffering does not surrender the political life oriented by it to the play of social interests and forces […] The memory of suffering, on the other hand, brings a new moral imagination into political life.

(Metz 1980, p. 117)

This can be clearly connected to Mez’s definition of open-eyed mysticism, which is aware of the suffering of others, which is part of political mysticism (Metz 1998; p. 162). From Metz’s perspective, people have memory of suffering that, together with other “subversive innovative factors in our society” may become “the ferment for that new political life we are seeking on behalf of our future” (Metz 1980, p. 118). This is what Pope Francis implies when he closes the exhortation suggesting that changes in Western lifestyle “would have a significant long-term impact. As a result, along with indispensable political decisions, we would be making progress along the way to genuine care for one another” Francis 2023, para. 72). In turn, the dialectics between memory (the past) and a future for which all members of a community can be held responsible in solidarity, recalls what young Fr. Bergoglio stated: “the future is achieved going deep into the path already covered” and “assuming as our own a journey of which we are a part” (Bergoglio 1993, p. 27). Though the exhortation is shorter than the encyclical, and both its scope and aims are more limited, the underlying message is the same: we are all part of this world given us by God, and in it, we should strive for equilibrium or harmony or, in other words, justice.

4. Conclusions

A situated Theology of the People developed largely in Argentina within the larger context of Liberation Theology, could be understood as one of the cultural ecosystems that Pope Francis describes in his encyclical: the response of a group of both theologians and philosophers who, immersed in a particular environment (that of the South American country in the 1970s) aimed at devising a liberation project in a particular political and religious setting. Fifty years later, the way Father Bergoglio had framed his message for the Jesuit community of Universidad del Salvador (which may be interpreted as his phrasing of the Theology of the People), reappear not in disguise but in a carefully crafted message to people of good will, in his encyclical and his exhortation dealing with issues related to ecology. In both Laudato Si’ and Laudate Deum, there is a call for love and solidarity as the basis for change. If in the context of the 1974 document the word “revolution” may have had other implications, in the 21st-century papal texts the conversion is explicitly related to the environment, and to people—all people—as an integral part of it. Where in the 1970s, Bergoglio preached a continuity of national popular movements, as Pope Francis, he emphasized the need to respect the heritage of peoples whose respectful, close and harmonious contact with the earth may offer guidelines for the restoration of the contemporary abused environment. This is a clear signal of Pope Francis’ ecological view, grounded on the reality of peoples and cultures. Not only in the two documents explored above but also in his proposition of open-eyed mysticism, Francis’ calls to action have deep spiritual roots as well as a close connection to people’s suffering, to bring about change. Overall, the equilibrium between humans and the environment is regained, the people will be able to reverse the utter inequality, the uneven distribution of goods, the overuse and abuse of power and resources at the hands of a few that characterize our times. The people, then, will harmoniously keep justice for all (a truism, which Pope Francis enunciated, considering not only human beings but also the world around them, of which they are a part).